Mrs. Sabita Paul vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 379 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Mrs. Sabita Paul vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 9 May, 2025

                                                                 Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010010192012




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/5868/2012

         ON THE DEATH OF JOGESH CHANDRA PAUL HIS LEGAL HEIR MRS.
         SABITA PAUL REP.
         S/O LT. PURNA CHANDRA PAUL P.O. and VILL MIRZA DIST. KAMRUP M,
         ASSAM, PIN- 781125.


         1.1: MRS. SABITA PAUL
         W/O. LATE JOGESH CHANDRA PAUL
         VILL. AND P.O. MIRZA
          DIST. KAMRUP
         ASSAM

          PIN-781125

         VERSUS



         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REP.B Y SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
         GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          KAMRUP METRO
          ASSAM
          GUWAHATI- 781001.

         3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          KAMRUP METRO
          ASSAM
          GUWAHATI- 781001.
                                                                          Page No.# 2/18

          4:LAND REQUISITION
           OFFICER
           KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI- 781001.

          5:PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

           DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
           METRO OFFICE
           KAMRUP
           GUWAHATI-781001.

          6:THE UNION SECRETARY

           MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES
           GOVT. OF INDIA
           SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
           RAFI MARG
           NEW DELHI-110001.

          7:THE CHAIRMAN

           BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD
           ASSAM
           BASISTHA
           GUWAHATI- 7810129

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N ISLAM, MR.A K DAS,MR.B SINHA,MR.K N
KALITA,MR.R K DAS,MSJ BHUYAN,MR. M J GOGOI,MR. T N SRINIVASAN

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS.V L SINGH, MR. S K MEDHI (Adl. Adv.

General,Assam),ASSTT.S.G.I.,GA, ASSAM,ADDL. AG, ASSAM,MR.N UPADHAYA,MR.Y DOLAY,SC, REVENUE,MRS. A GAYAN (CGC, R6 & R7)

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

Date of hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of Judgment: 09.05.2025

Judgment & order(CAV)

Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Page No.# 3/18

Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, for respondent No. 1, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents No. 6 and 7.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner (now deceased) namely, Jogesh Chandra Paul and on his death represented by his legal heir Mrs. Sabita Paul. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation with solatium at the present market value of the land measuring 13 bighas 3 kathas and 16 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.243 Dag No.1921 and 203 of village Maidam Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup (M), Guwahati in LA Case No.9/68-69 belongs to the petitioner, acquired by the respondents for construction and setting up River Research Centre (now the Office of Brahmaputra Board).

3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner is the recorded pattadar of land measuring 13 bighas, 3 kathas and 16 lechas of K.P. Patta No.243 of Dag No.1921 and 203 of Village- Maidam Gaon, Mouza- Beltola, District-Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. It is an ancestral property and prior to acquisition, it was being cultivated by the deceased petitioner and his family members.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that his aforesaid land was acquired vide LA Case No.9/68-69 in the year 1968. However, when no land compensation was paid, even after repeated representations before the Collector, which were submitted on 16.01.1972, 20.10.1972 and 22.02.1997, the petitioner had to approach this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained certain information through RTI only in the year 2012 and accordingly, this writ petition is filed in the year 2012 being the lawful owner of the aforesaid land. The respondent authorities have never notified about the requisition/acquisition Page No.# 4/18

of the land by the government for setting up River Research Centre (now Brahmaputra Board, Assam) nor was he aware of any publication in the newspaper or the official gazette. The respondent authorities ought to have taken the legal recourse of notification and subsequent enquiry under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. The petitioner contends that the deceased petitioner resides almost 30 kms away from the said land and was never aware of the acquisition proceedings being contemplated by the government and hence, could not avail himself of the legal provision under the Land Acquisition Act to ventilate his grievance. More so, no proceedings were initiated as per the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is contended that the deceased petitioner having learnt about the acquisition, visited the Office of the then Deputy Commissioner and sought the details about the same but was not responded. In the meantime, the construction of the building of River Research Centre (now Brahmaputra Board, Assam) was carried out without there being any proceedings for acquisition.

6. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the name of the deceased petitioner was reflected in the Chitha and the remarks passed by the Circle Officer of the concerned Revenue area undisputedly fortifies the deceased petitioner being recorded pattadar as it clearly reflects that a total land measuring 13 bighas, 3 kathas and 16 lechas of land was acquired by the government and reserved it for River Research Centre. Therefore, there is no dispute as regards the pattadar or ownership of the petitioner in respect of the land in question.

7. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel, submits that despite long drawn process of seeking information as regards the acquisition/requisition of the land of the petitioner, no information was provided in respect of the LA Case No.9/68-69 Page No.# 5/18

except to show that since the records were very old and inspite of sincere efforts, the case records could not be traced out. The failure of the respondents to trace out the case records pertaining to LA Case No.9/68-69 on the pretext of the same being old cannot be accepted in the eye of law and the petitioner needs to be compensated for the inept handling of the entire matter by the respondent authorities. The inaction on the part of the respondent authorities violates the principle of natural justice towards discharge of the statutory duties by the respondent authorities as no procedures required to be followed under the relevant Land Acquisition Act have been followed and also failed to provide documents relating to the said Land Acquisition proceedings on the pretext of record being old and not traceable.

8. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel, on issue of delay in approaching this Court, submits that the original petitioner who was an illiterate person and who used to live in a remote area about 30 Kms from the land acquired was never notified by the respondents regarding the acquisition of his land and he could come to know at the much later stage about the said acquisition. After consultation with the village headman who guided him to someone knowledgeable filed applications before the then Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup on 16.01.1972, 20.10.1972 and 22.02.1973 seeking compensation against the aforesaid acquired lands. But unfortunately, those applications were never responded to by the respondents. The petitioner made rounds of the Deputy Commissioner's Office enquiring about the compensation amount that remained unpaid to him inspite of his sincere efforts made diligently before the respondent authorities. Since, he being an ordinary person with no connections with the higher-ups, he did not even get any lukewarm response from the respondent department. Being frustrated, he decided to file applications under the Right to Information Page No.# 6/18

Act on 04.09.2011 seeking detailed information regarding L.A. Case No.9/68-69. It elicited a reply from the Deputy Commissioner's Office only on 22.09.2011 which categorically stated that the records related to the said L.A. Case could not be traced out as it was too old. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 07.01.2012. The said appeal was disposed off by the then D.C. Kamrup on 27.03.2012 with a direction to the then ADC/i/c/B.O. Land Acquisition Branch, to search the record afresh and furnish the information to the petitioner. But then even after waiting for more then one year nothing substantial came out from the Deputy Commissioner's Office and the said office was repetitive in their replies dated 19.05.2012 and 30.05.2012 that the records pertaining to the L.A. Case No.9/68-69 could not be traced out. Lastly, the deceased petitioner made a frantic representation through his lawyer before the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Assam on 21.08.2012, but same also evoked no response from the said department. So, the petitioner left with no other option but to approach this Hon'ble Court in 2012 to ameliorate his woes and grievances.

9. Relying on the case of Ram Chand -Versus- Union of India, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 44, Mr. Das, learned counsel, submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed that the question of delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 has to be considered along with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities who had to perform their statutory duties and it was weighed whether the statutory authority can take a plea that although it failed to perform its duties within a reasonable time, but it was of no consequence because the person, who has been wronged or deprived of his legitimate rights, has also not invoked the jurisdiction of the High court for a suitable writ or direction to grant the relief considered appropriate in the Page No.# 7/18

circumstances. The respondent authorities are enjoined by the statute concerned to perform their duties within a reasonable time, and as such they are accountable to the court why such duties have not been performed by them, which has caused injury to the claimant. Therefore, the duty of the respondents in disposing of the representations/applications dated 16.1.1972, 20.10.1972 and 22.2.1973 respectively has not been discharged and the reasonable time has elapsed in not notifying and compensating the petitioner in terms of the provisions as had been laid down in the Land Acquisition Act.

10. Mr. Das, learned counsel submits that the respondents have admitted and accepted the fact that they were at fault in not reciprocating to the several approaches of the petitioner and it is an acceptance by them that the petitioner had to approach this Hon'ble Court because of their lapse in not acting in conformity with the provisions of the land acquisition laws. Therefore, there is no delay in preferring this writ petition.

11. In support of his submissions, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-

i) Ram Chand vs. Union of India reported in 1994 (1) SCC 44;

ii) Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors; reported in 2014 0 AIR (SC) 982

iii) Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1993 SC 2517..

iv) Delhi Development Authority vs. Ishwar Singh, reported in (2017) 13 SCC

276.

12 Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, while raising the issue of delay and laches, submits that the land was requisitioned under Page No.# 8/18

Assam Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1964 (in short, "Act of 1964") in the year 1967-69. However, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2012 i.e. after lapse of 42 years, therefore, the writ petition is hit by the delay and laches as there is no explanation in approaching this Court after 42 years, which is hopelessly delayed.

13. Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, has referred to the order of this Court passed on 04.06.2014 by which the WP(C) 1354/2014, filed by one Shri Amulaya Das, in which the deceased petitioner was the respondent No.6, which has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner has acquired relief. Therefore, he submits that the present writ petition on similar facts and law is not maintainable. He has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA 286/2023 in the case On the death of Hemanta Kumar Mandal and his sons and legal heirs Amar Chand Mandal and 6 Ors., -vs- Union of India and

Ors., dated 13.03.2024, whereby, the Division Bench has rejected the claim of

the writ petitioner in that case on the ground of delay of more than 50 years in approaching the Court.

14. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.2 and 3, submits that information sought by the petitioner in connection with LA Case No.9/68-69 was replied vide letter dated 30.05.2012 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition Branch) that the said land acquisition is very old and in spite of sincere efforts, the case records could not be traced out. However, subsequently the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, vide letter dated 07.01.2017 has clearly stated that some part of the records of the land acquisition case has been found wherein, it is mentioned that LA Case No.9/68- 69 relating to acquisition of land for River Research Centre at Basistha Grant, an Page No.# 9/18

area of land measuring 177 bigha-0 Katha-0 Lecha was acquisitioned vide notification dated 02.02.1969 under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1964 which was requisitioned on 20.12.1967 and in the case register it was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 5,04,582.13/ (Rupees Five Lakh Four thousand Five hundred Eighty Two and Thirteen paisa) only - was sanctioned and the final award was made.

15. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, by taking this Court to the series of events that has taken place to trace out the record of LA Case No.9/68-69 submits that it is known from the letter dated 04.02.1969 that an amount of Rs. 7,99,797.73 (Rupees Seven Lakh Ninety nine thousand Seven hundred Ninety Seven and Seventy Three paisa) only has been sanctioned. In the enclosed statement of Land Acquisition Officer, Guwahati, it indicates that Rs.5,04,582.13 (Rupees Five Lakh Four thousand Five hundred Eighty Two and Thirteen paisa) only has been sanctioned and an amount of Rs. 97,465.64 (Rupees Ninety Seven thousand Four hundred Sixty Five and Sixty four) only was sanctioned as excess amount which was kept in treasury with a view to adjust the amount with the acquisition cost of 48B-0K-0L of the land for the same purpose at village- Basistha Grant and Maidam Gaon. The relevant documents received from Water Resource Department was shared with the Treasury officer of Kamrup Metro district with a request to submit information in this regard vide this office letter No. KRA-63/2013/554, dated-15.07.2024. In reply, Treasury Officer informed that they could not trace out the records inspite of rigorous search.

16. He submits that from the letter dated 30.12.1976, it is mentioned that 48B-0K-2L of land could not be handed over to River Research Center as it was under illegal occupation and as a result it was agreed that some other land will Page No.# 10/18

be handed over to them and Rs. 97,465.64 (Rupees Ninety Seven thousand Four hundred Sixty Five and Sixty four) and Rs. 42,652.48 (Rupees Forty two thousand Six hundred Fifty two and Forty eight paise) only was kept in Kamrup Treasury for subsequent adjustment. Also, a statement has been found from the records of Water Resource Department, signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Guwahati, wherein it is written that excess amount for future adjustment for LA case No. 9/68-69 is Rs. 97,465.64 (Rupees Ninety Seven thousand Four hundred Sixty Five and Sixty four Paisa) only and for LA case No. 10/68-69 is Rs. 42,652.48. (Rupees Forty two thousand Six hundred Fifty two and Forty eight paise) only and also in LA case No.10/68-69, Rs.19,737.00 (Rupees Nineteen thousand seven hundred Thirty Seven) and disbursed to parties including Govt. charges. Also the old map of Maidam Gaon was collected from Director of Surveys and accordingly Circle Officer, Dispur was asked to submit report on the current location of the dags.

17. He submits that it is evident from report that old dag No. 482 is inside Brahmaputra Board and the old dag no.486 is in possession of Water Resource Department. Thus, it can be presumed that the dags are not included in the area where possession could not be taken due to illegal occupation. This office has made an extensive exercise in search of further reference of payment and for tracing out records as desired by the Hon'ble Court, but could not be traced out even after their best effort. Therefore, he submits that since the land compensation in respect of 13 bighas 3 kathas and 16 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.243 Dag No.1921 and 203 of village Maidam Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup (M), Guwahati has already been paid, there is no question of payment of land compensation at this stage.

18. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties Page No.# 11/18

and also perused the records including the LA Case register in original.

19. The ownership of the land measuring 13 bighas 3 kathas and 16 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.243 Dag No.1921 and 203 of village Maidam Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup (M), Guwahati of the deceased petitioner is not disputed nor the requisition/acquisition of land by the respondent authorities is disputed.

20. The stand of the respondents reflect the admission that in response to an RTI application vide a letter dated 30.05.2012 informed the petitioner that no records could be traced out in connection with the LA Case No.9/68-69 as the matter was old. However, it has stated that some parts of records of the said LA case has been found. The LA Case No.9/68-69 is shown as AC No.9/68-69. No document is produced regarding the payment and receipt of the compensation by petitioner for acquired land except showing Rs. 5,04,582.13/- (Rupees five lacs four thousand five hundred eighty two and thirteen paise) as compensation paid. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was paid the compensation amount.

21. This Court by an order dated 04.01.2024 had sought the verification of the land records as regards to the veracity of the claims made by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said Order, the land records were verified and placed before this Hon'ble Court on 06.02.2024 from which it reveals that Dag No.486 is the new Dag whereas the old Dag was Dag No.203 and the land included therein is 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 12 Lechas and the concerned Patta Number was 238. It is also seen that the name of Shri Jogesh Chandra Paul was mentioned as the pattadar. Therefore, it is in consonance with the Chitha register. As regards Dag No.482, it has been mentioned that the records could not be traced out. Subsequently, on 14.03.2024 the respondents produced a certified copy of the chitha which Page No.# 12/18

depicts that the petitioner was the recorded pattadar of the acquired land.

22. As observed by this Court earlier, only question remains is that whether the land acquisition compensation has been paid to the petitioner. The Respondents submits that payment has already been made, however, the statement in the affidavit is not clear as to when and in what manner, the payment to the petitioner has been made inasmuch as such fact is required to be clarified in view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner that no land acquisition compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Collector to substantiate that actually payment was made to the petitioner whose land was acquired. A statement was also been made that the respondent Collector shall be able to produce the Register to show such proof.

23. On 31.07.2024 the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition, Kamrup (M), Mr. Priyanshu Bharadwaj, personally appeared before this Court along with a Register of payment. This court has observed that the record, which according to the Additional Deputy Commissioner is a register of payment, reflects a remark that awarded amount has been paid. However, beyond that there is no record to suggest in what manner such payment was made and to whom it was made and whether any acknowledgement of such payment was received from the beneficiaries of land acquisition. The Deputy Commissioner is also not sure who had written and who is authorized to write such a remark in a Payment Register that too without seal and signature. Thus, such document cannot be a proof of payment of land acquisition compensation, inasmuch as the procedure prescribes for a payment of land acquisition compensation do not prescribe such a manner. In view of the aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner was granted time to file a specific affidavit clarifying the Page No.# 13/18

aforesaid observations made by this court, more particularly, how and in what manner, the land Acquisition compensation has been made and how the Collector can establish their stand that actually the land acquisition compensation was paid to the beneficiaries from whom the land was acquired. However, the respondents remains elusive and have not clarified how and in what manner, the land acquisition compensation has been made and actually the land acquisition compensation was paid to the beneficiaries from whom the land was acquired.

24. It is noticed that one Shri Amulya Das and others , stated to be the nephews of the deceased petitioner had also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1354/2014 seeking compensation against the land in question wherein the deceased petitioner was arrayed as respondent no.6. Eventually, Amulya Das & Ors and deceased petitioner reached an agreement amongst themselves that if and when the compensation amount is paid, the same shall be shared in proportion of 50:50, thus, Amulya Das & Ors decided to withdraw the W.P(C) No.1354/2014. Accordingly, withdrawal of the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.06.2014 on being secured relief and disposed of as not pressed.

25. On consideration of the matter, although the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the acquisition/requisition of the land of the petitioner has not been done in terms of the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as there is no record to show that the provision were followed and the respondent authorities be directed to pay the compensation with solatium as per the market value of the land in question, this Court finds that the short issues required to be determined has boiled down as to whether the land compensation has been paid to the pattadar/land owner and as to whether the deceased petitioner has received the compensation amount.

Page No.# 14/18

26. The original LA Case register of Kamrup (M) District in respect of LA Case No.9/68-69 indicates that the land in question measuring 13 bighas 3 kathas and 16 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.243 Dag No.1921 and 203 of village Maidam Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup (M), Guwahati, was requisitioned for the purpose of construction of River Research Centre. It was registered on 20.12.1967 showing the total area as 177 bigha, 0 Katha and 0 Lecha, which was notified vide notification No.RLA-25/69/2 on 02.02.1969 under Section 6(1) of Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964. It reflects that a total compensation amount of Rs.504582.13/- (Rupees five lacs four thousand five hundred eighty two and thirteen paise) only was determined and accordingly, final award was made and the amount was paid. However, as noted above, there is no indication of the recipient of the compensation amount. The original register consists of other land acquisition matters also and it also does not indicate the name of the recipients of the compensation amount. Other than the above LA case register, no documents have been placed before this Court. Learned counsels for the respondents have fairly submitted that despite best effort, the same could not be traced out in view of the fact that the records being very old, which is of way back in 1969.

27. The efforts made by the respondent authorities are fortified by the series of correspondences for tracing out the original record which has been annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3. The noting clearly indicates that the respondent authorities have made an effort to trace out the records but in vain.

28. Having been noticed above, however, this court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect that there is no record to show that the deceased petitioner/petitioner has received the Page No.# 15/18

compensation amount which the respondents have projected to have been paid, inasmuch as, the original LA case register does not reflects the recipient of the compensation for the land except remark of paid. As noted herein above, the respondents remains elusive and have not clarified how and in what manner, the land acquisition compensation has been made and actually the land acquisition compensation was paid to the beneficiaries from whom the land was acquired. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner could establish that the deceased petitioner was the pattadar and owner of the land in question and therefore entitled to land compensation.

29. This Court also finds that the respondent authorities have made efforts to trace out the LA Register, where all the land acquisition proceedings were maintained, which indicates the date of registration, notification of acquisition/requisition and an amount of Rs. 5,04,582.13/-(Rupees five lacs four thousand five hundred eighty two and thirteen paise) only as a compensation for the land acquired in question with a remark that award was made which has been placed before this Court in original. The respondent authorities have made averment that the respondent authorities have paid the compensation amount although without the name of the recipients, which would be difficult to brush aside. Although the records in the LA Register in original is an indicative of the payment of compensation but the name of the recipient is not mentioned. It is the case of the petitioner that no compensation has been received by the deceased petitioner/petitioner and even if an award of Rs. 5,04,582.13/-(Rupees five lacs four thousand five hundred eighty two and thirteen paise) only was made, the petitioner has not received the same which is supported by the fact that the name of the petitioner is not shown as recipient of the compensation amount.

Page No.# 16/18

30. Regard being had to the issue of delay in approaching this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed compensation to be paid to the land owner by ignoring the delay in the case of Vidaya Devi -vs- State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2020 (2) SCC 569.

31. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of On the death of Hemanta Kumar Mandal and his sons and legal heirs Amar Chand Mandal (Supra), has

observed and held that no doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed compensation to be paid to the land owner by ignoring the delay in the case of Vidaya Devi (Supra), however, in that case, the appellant was an illiterate widow

coming from rural background, who was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlements under the law and therefore, did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land taken over by the State. By taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the State to pay compensation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India.

32. Although, the petitioner has made vain attempt to show that the deceased petitioner was illiterate and residing 30 kms away from the land in question, the justification of being illiterate is not fully convinced on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court. Although, the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of more than 40 years, this Court refrains from determining the issue of delay and laches as this Court has determined the issue by entering into the merit and concluded (supra).

33. As noted above, the deceased petitioner/petitioner, admittedly, was a pattadar of the land in question and undisputedly, the land was acquired/requisitioned under the provision of the Act of 1964 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated. The available record i.e the LA Case Page No.# 17/18

register in original, wherein, it is clearly reflected the date of registration of LA Case, notification, acquisition & requisition and the amount of compensation by way of final award of Rs. 5,04,582.13/- (Rupees five lacs four thousand five hundred eighty two and thirteen paise) only being shown paid, but without the name of the recipient. The respondent authorities could only show that the compensation amount has been paid way back in 1969 by relying on the above register, however, they have miserably failed to show that same was paid to the deceased petitioner in terms of the law despite several opportunities granted to the Respondent authorities to show the same. Thus, it would be difficult for this Court to refuse the relief to the petitioner for payment of land compensation to the petitioner as the respondent authorities could not show that the aforesaid compensation has been paid to the deceased petitioner except remark of paid without the name of any recipient and that too when the pattadar or ownership is clearly established in the name of the deceased petitioner.

34. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of the land acquired. Thus, I am inclined to direct for payment of land compensation in respect of the land in question to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall pay/release the compensation/award amount of Rs. 5,04,582.13/- (Rupees five lacs four thousand five hundred eighty two and thirteen paise) only to the petitioner for the land measuring 13 bighas 3 kathas and 16 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.243 Dag No.1921 and 203 of village Maidam Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup(M), Guwahati in LA Case No.9/68-69 acquired by the respondents for construction and setting up River Research Centre (now the Office of Brahmaputra Board) within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Page No.# 18/18

35. Writ petition stands allowed and disposed of, accordingly.

However, no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant